Good idea BAD MOVIE

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Punker69
What movie do you think had a good idea but it was a bad moive.
Like it could have been good if the movie was different.

bunnies = omens
This is a good idea for a thread!

Hmm im sure theres plenty of these but off the top of my head The mothman prophecies.
I was really excited to see this think how chilling it would of been, but instead it just dragged

Evil Dead
Dreamcatcher

Had a great concept..........but with most of Stephen King's work in the past few years, fell very short.

The movie had low production value.......it looked like it was made for t.v. The ending sequence was anti-climactic.

Just as with Golden Years and The Langoliers..........King had a good concept, it just didn't translate to the big screen very well.

Punker69
BUNNIES THATS WHAT I WAS THINKIN!!!

LOL

Darth Revan
I've seen the Langoliers it was a cool idea but the characters were really dumb especially that little blind girl and the fat guy that kept saying "lets go have some food" god they're trapped in another time and all he could think of was food what an idiot

Also it was a good idea to do SW prequels but they suck

Harmon
Hulk - Great Idea........terrible movie

Kes
Jeepers Creepers...good idea. Cool movie till they show the Jeepers messed

I agree with The mothman prophecies...cool idea. Really cool but the movie failed.

This has nothing to do with DVD so moving to Movie discussion
moving--moved

Traydemark03
I have to say...Streetfighter...It was a brilliant idea to make one...but it was a horrible movie! Oh and double dragon too.

Binx
Jurassic Park: Lost World

If they actually had just stuck with the book, it would have been a kick ass movie. Michael Crichton isn't a successful author for nothing. Most of the movies that are derived from his books always stray from it so badly that it ends of ruining the movie. Well, mostly for people who have read the book, like me.

Lord Soth
Harry Potter. I love the books (read them about 7 times each) butthe movies are just terrible. Azkaban look okay, though, it's probably cuz it's a diffn't director

Ushgarak
Velvet Goldmine. I still cannot work out why anything so well-acted, beautifully shot, and very well produced, could have ended up as such a mediocre film.

Punker69
All great replys guys.

johnny_rotten
The Life Of David Gale

Awful stuff, the biggest dissapointment of 2003 for me.

MsFit
I thought 'Unbreakable' was a great idea for a movie. Yet when I came to watch it I found it dull and boring. How they managed that with Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson I just don't know.

DM_Kirsten
I think any Stephen King book-to-movie (or telemovies) were a good concept, but very few made the grade. I admit, I liked 'The Green mile,' 'The Stand' and both versions of 'the shining', but others just bored me after a time, 'thinner', 'it', 'the tommyknockers' ... need I say more?

johnny_rotten
Guess you've never seen "Dolores Claiborne" i suppose.

mook
star wars episode 1+2

Lord Soth
That was quite a disappointment to me too

Sc0rchy
haha... amen, mr. mook

lederuvdapac
pearl harbor, terminator 3 (wasnt awful but coulda been better)

Punker69
Unbreakable.

Lil Seraph
Happy Dance Yeah Terminator 3 wasn't too bad, it wasn't to good either. The camera angles when the hot chick transports in are crap, its from the wrong side and the car mirror was in the way. Lol. laughing

Nah, The One was so stupid. The movie with Jet Li and there's parallel dimensions n stuff i thought sum bits looked cool but it was soooo fake. It looked cool when time slowed down. Jet Li's a mad fighter. They could have just used two asians instead of trying too hard to put Jet Li's face on it. It would've looked more real. Dun worry im asian its aight. big grin

Unbreakable was mad in sum bits like at the Train Station, but the rest was pure poo. Boring as hell.

Happy Dance L8trz.

P.S Hilary Is Hot. eek!

P.P.S Did you noe dat The Rock was going to star as Gabriel Ulaw the main character in "The One" but he refused the role to star in the "The Scorpion King". Which was a better movie. Good Choice. Happy Dance

mook
terminator 3 WAS awful, such a disappointment.

reminds me of batman forever- the moment a film series loses its ways, forgets its predecessors and falls in to decline.

botankus
A sequel does not qualify for this topic!! Unless it's a "good idea" as in...."Let's recycle this plot and characters one more time to make some extra $$$$." If that's the "good idea gone bad" then you must be a movie executive.

mook
i see your point, however some sequels can be a good idea like T2.
however T3 was a bad idea from the start.

justinday15
The 6th day. I like the story line but it was an awful movie.

Punker69
i thought it was alright justin

Evil Dead
The star wars trilogy special editions..............

good idea...........take the classic trilogy and spruce them up with today's technology. Add in what was impossible to add in when they were originally created.

bad movies.......made the movies look just awful. Added too much stuff in............it was no longer "I wanted to put this in but couldn't"......it was "hey, I have the technology now to digitally alter every scene, I think I'll do that".............

caballera
28 days later

such a good concept but i think it could have been SOOOOOOO much better.

The Unknown
Big Fish

Punker69
i havent seen big fish

but why was it a bad movie unknown?

wicker_man
Evolution - Here you have Ivan Reitman who is the genius behind Ghostbusters and you have a pretty stellar cast that includes Julianne Moore, David Duchovony, Sean William Scott & Orlando Jones however the final product left me unfulfilled.

burlyman
Big Fish is bad? confused

Evil Dead
Dead on Wicker............Evolution was good for a chuckle.......but loses it rewatchability very quickly.......yes, I just made up the word rewatchability...........

28 Days Later is fantastic the way it is.........the only thing I would have changed was the ending. The film is just great.

Agent_Diva
28 Days Later definatley.......sleepy time....^_^

caballera
glad someone agrees with 28 days later...bummer on that one. i like "art" films and independent films very much but this one was one of those self-consciously trying too hard to fit in artsy stuff that did not help the film at all. but the ideas in it were great. i'd like to see it done better.

i thought big fish was fantastic. surely not burton's best, but pretty f-ing great.

Punker69
i cant wait to see BIG fish.

Myth
Hey, I hated 28 Days Later too. I don't see what anybody saw in that movie.

Punker69
i havent seen 28 days later

alic88
t3. good but it had SO SO SO MUCH POTENTIAL

Kes
Artsy?!blink Wtf are you talking about?

Lord Soth
28 Days Later, artsy? What are you talking about?

amity75
Charlies Angels

Punker69
i thought Charlies Angels:Full Throttle was cool.It was fake but they pulled it off nicely.

Dario Argento
28 Days Later is great, and it has some very beautiful scenes. But I don't see why some people consider it as the best horror movie in 10 years.

alphafemme
i like your sig, myth. i hated 28 days later as well...trash.

T3 was SO much worse than T2...the whole thing seemed half-assed to me, with the exception of a couple good action scenes. the storyline was garbage...it's like they stopped caring. and danes is not a goddamn action actress...she's very good at crying with that quivering lip thing and she should stick to that.

caballera
the director himself said he was going for something totally different with a 'stylized' horror flick. the editing surely tries to be artsy. not to mention pointless shots through a sheet of plastic that do nothing for the film. the whole sequence with the girls in those evening gowns (hey, where'd they get those?) held captive by the soldiers was like a bad student art film.

Evil Dead
most people dissing 28 Days Later don't even appear to be big horror fans..............if you're not a fan of the genre, you have no right to say the movie is bad.......your opinion is biased from the start as you don't like horror movies.

- Having watched Scream, I Know What you Did Last Summer, Urban Legend, Jeepers Creepers, etc. and a few Freddy/ Jason movies doesn't make you a horror fan................I'm talking real horror movies, not modern mainstream watered down trash thrown into the theater to appeal to the kiddies.

The exception is ofcourse Dario Argento. Without even seeing his title/sig I know he is a horror fan ......by his name alone. Good choice of names at that. He didn't even trash it......he said it was good but he didn't see why people thought it was the best horror movie in 10 years.

I go beyond that. I say 28 Days Later is the best horror film in 17 years.........the best horror film since Hellraiser.

Serious question here Dario........name a horror movie in the past ten years that has been better than 28 Days Later. All I can think of being made in the last 10 years is the Scream, I Know What you Did Last Summer, Wrong Turn, Urban Legend, the Ring, Valentine, Jeepers Creepers, watered down mainstream crap.

I can however think of two exceptions........House on Haunted Hill and Thirteen Ghosts. I actually enjoyed both of those films. Neither are as good as 28 Days Later but still great watches. I do believe they would have been much better had they not been mainstream hollywood movies made with "stars" like Chris Katan, Famke Janson, Taye Diggs, Shannon Elizabeth, Mathew Lillard, etc. Anytime you see a guy playing in a horror movie one week and Scooby Doo, Saturday Night Live, etc. another week you know they could have come up with better casting for the horror movie.

Kes
Going for something different and artsy are 2 very different things meine freund. The only difference in this movie is that most of it was made using digital cameras to give it the really real look (the final scenes in the cottage were shot on 35mm film).
There's nothing spectacular about the ending...the movie as its plot holes I give you that...but every horror movie as plot holes.

Punker69
Evil Dead you made me realize im not a horror fan.Those are all the horrors I like to watch.I love horror movies I love everything about them.How they scare you make you tense.I thought I was a true horror fan.But I was wrong im not. sad

caballera
i wouldn't jump the gun there...i love good horror movies; i wouldn't say it's necessarily my favorite genre, but the good ones stick with you.

i'm very familiar with the two classic archetypes of horror films: horror films of the body (ie texas chainsaw massacre) and horror films of the mind (ie the shining). a good horror film of the body is usually comical, as well as gruesome, whereas the horror films of the mind simply chill you to the bone.
i'm not saying i'm an afficionado, but i appreciate the genre, and i know what i like. (by the way, the evil dead movies are classics...sam raimi is a genius.)
i thought ringu (the original japanese version) was a fantastic horror film of the mind...evil dead, i know you said the ring (i'm assuming the american version) was mainstream crap, but i don't think you can lump it together with movies like 'scream' and 'i know what you did last summer' etc. it's a step up.

that said, i still think 28 days later was a tremendous disappointment. it could be because i had a lot of friends who praised it to no end, so i started with very high expectations. but i watched it again and tried to be as objective as i could and still thought it was poorly executed. some scenes were well-done (the shots of an emptied london; almost any scene with the father who becomes infected). but overall, it just wasn't good. hence it made my good idea/bad movie list.

Lord Soth
I admit I'm not a 'true horor fan' as you put it, but I must object to the implication the Scream was watered down mainstream crap. It was a genius idea, briliantly executed and even you have to admit that it revived horror, if only for a time

Evil Dead
I agree with alot of what you guys have said.........and I applaud those of you who admit that "hey, I'm only a casual fan.....I watch horror movies that look good but it's not my favorite genre and I'm not an afficianado on the subject".......

The Ring........not really a step above. The only real difference is it about adult characters, not teenagers. If you put a teenager in the title role it becomes just like the other modern horror movies. It was a decent watch.......hell, I bought the dvd. I watch it every now and again when I can't think of anything else I havn't seen recently.

Ringu..........I'd say it is about par with the American version. I'm not going to jump on the Japanese horror bandwagon and say that it was better simply because it was the original and made on a smaller budget. It was decent.........but I'd say no better, no worse than the Ring.

Scream.........damn good movie. I like it. I own all three (the box set) on dvd. The first one is really good. It stands head and shoulders above the rest of the modern horror movies. Very innovative. The sequels sucked.......sorry, but they did, badly. The movie is good as I've stated........but I don't rank it high on my horror list because it's not all horror. Some of the most important elements of the film...some of the best elements are not horror related. While it is primarily a horror flick, it blends several other genre's into it thus watering down it's pure horror apeal to me.

Punker........I like some of those movies too. I'm not bashing them saying they are no good........I'm saying in comparison to other horror movies they aren't that great. I like Urban Legend......I don't know why but I do. Is it a horror movie? yes.........now would I put it on the same list as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Night of the Living Dead? No. I don't know alot about you........but if you havn't seen alot of the best true horror films along with the modern/teenager horror films than you aren't a true horror fan........you might appreciate the modern horror sub-genre but the entire genre of horror in general is what I'm talking about. If somebody is a hardcore slasher movie fan but hasn't seen the movies like Psycho, The Amityville Horror, The Shining, Dawn of the Dead, etc.....I wouldn't call them a real horror fan either. They are just fans of the Slasher sub-genre.

I'm not trying to offend anybody so I hope I havn't........I just call it as I see it. If you've seen alot of the all-time great horror films you'll notice that 28 Days Later is not that different. If somebody is primarily an action/comedy/sci-fi movie fan.....ofcourse they're not going to love 28 Days Later. It's a horror movie. It wasn't made to appeal to the action fan who watches a horror movie every now and again. It was made for us die hard horror fans to enjoy and appreciate......and we do.

I'm not going to front or be hypocritical. I own all 3 Scream movies, Urban Legend, The Ring, both Blair Witch movies, all 10 Friday the 13th/Jason movies, all 7 Nightmare on Elm St. movies, Freddy vs. Jason, both Final Destination movies, the sixth sense, House on Haunted Hill, 13 Ghosts and They all on dvd.

The thing is....I also own The Omen, The Amityville Horror, Night of the Living Dead, Day of the Dead, all 6 Hellraiser movies, The Shining, Carrie, Jaws, Last House on the Left, Phantasm, Demons, The Gate, all 4 of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies, all four Critters movies, Children of the Corn, Cujo, Martin, Piranha, Return of the Living Dead, I Spit on Your Grave, In the Mouth of Madness, all 3 Evil Dead movies, etc., etc., etc. on dvd.

I'm not somebody who only watches the new/modern/teenage horror stuff..........I watch all horror. I love horror. There are clearly two different levels of horror I can represent by two movies in one category each.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Night of the Living Dead

Urban Legend
Scream

If somebody asked me which category 28 Days Later belongs in.......in goes in the first one with two of the all time classic horror movies. It doesn't belong anywhere near that second list with Urban Legend and Scream.

Just defending my position.......clarifying. To each his own...........I guess I'm really just saying that if you didn't like 28 Days Later, you're not part of the audience the movie was made for.

Kes
I'd put 28days later in the mind category because the whole...I'm alone thing is the basic idea of the film. Not enraged ppl attacking other ppl.
IMO its more psychological then visual. But that my opinion.

Evil Dead
I think 28 Days later does a good job blending most of the horror sub-genres (except horror/comedy......they didn't include that subgenre thank god)..........

It has good suspense with a great plot ......psychological
It has a great zombie feel (even though they aren't really zombies)
It has all the gore and attack scenes you could hope for in a slasher flick

okay, enough about this movie......we have gotten way off subject. I'm more to blame for that than anybody else so I will apologize to the creator of this thread for changing the topic.........

now back to the original topic of discussion.

Lord Soth
Hehe.. I obviously misinterpreted your definition on watered down then.... ~sheepish~

I was just defending it coz it's the frist movie that really ever scared the crap out of me (shows how inexperienced I am, doesn't i?)

Kes
Scream scared you?!blink
I always considered Scream more of a thriller.
Ok...topic. Good idea, bad movie!

Lord Soth
I know. Thrillers are supposed to scare. Horror is supposed to scare and disgust

I don't have any more movies....

caballera
yeah there have got to be loads more....(back to the topic...)

Dario Argento
My personal favorite in the last ten years is "DellaMorte DellaMore" (Cemetery Man). Also "The Kingdom" by Lars von Trier is fantastic and some of the most innovative in the horror genre in many many years

I am not saying there are many horror films in the last ten years that are better, but there are some. (In my opinion of course)

I agree with you, there have been so much mainstream teen horror crap in the last ten years. I hate Scream and IKWYDLS, the Ring(Japanese Version), however, I think is OK.

Lady_Eowyn3
I consider myself a mainstrean horror fan (even if u can't tell from my nick) I have watched almost all the classics continuously as well as the sequals, except for the Omen cuz that smile on Damien seriously creeped me out at the end (one of the few things that did freak me out, i didn't think the movie was that scary, just the basic concept) and I LOTHE 28 days later, maybe because of the undeniable resemblence to Resident Evil, which disgusted me wth the grueling disease dogs, but I though it just wasn't very good, for no real reason, i found it predictable and just bad, for lack of a better word, I love the feeling you get when you get scared, and truthfully, many movies scared me more it was just bad and there truly is no other word to describe it. House on Haunted Hill was not that great either, I loved the scenes with the ghosts but not the in between stuff, i really enjoyed the suspense of the film, 13 ghosts was all right but it seemed more gruesome than scary, the concept for both 13 ghosts and HOHH was really good, i just thought they could have done better when creating the actual film.

Back to the topic, Underworld, it was completely predictable once you got halfway through the story.

Tired Hiker
League of extraordinary gentlemen. I'm sure it's probably been said already, but I had to just remind everyone.

Lord Soth
The Hulk. I'm a big fan of comic book movies, but Hulk was just completely terrible

ORLI MY BOI!
yep gotta agree wif ya lord soth it could have been better like not so drawn out that i nearly fell asleep

plenTpak52
Clockstoppers and Timeline. I actually didn't see Timeline, but I heard it was bad (it also looked bad to me). I loved the book, though.

EDIT: Oh and DareDevil. Such a terrific idea. A blind superhero with superhuman senses; how much cooler can it get? TERRIBLE movie. Ben Affleck as a superhero? How much worse can it get?

Melkor_TheEnemy
Masters of the Universe, they could have made that into a great film but it was really really bad.

Ivan Drago as He-Man, half the characters from the cartoon series wasn't in it, Castle Grayskull looked more like some technological tower and Skeletors army were Stormtroopers from Star Wars in black instead of white!

Cinemaddiction
ANYTHING is better than the HACK of a movie that is "28 Days Later".

"28 Days Later" is a very simple equation.

Resident Evil + The Day After + The Omega Man = "28 Days Later"

It wasn't "scary as hell", it was ****in' BORING! It was a fesitval of tired, retread horror movie bits and pieces. Totally overrated, and totally unoriginal.

To answer the burning "name a horror film" question, here ya go...

Evil Dead
Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn
Ringu
The Eye
Silence of the Lambs
Bad Taste
Hannibal
Cronos (del Toro, not Vampire Hunter)
It
Scream
Dawn of the Dead
Dead Alive
Final Destination 1 + 2
From Dusk Til Dawn 1
The Devil's Backbone
Re-Animator(?)
Spiceworld



I mean, I could go on and on. Besides, how many of Dario Argento's movies are available in the US aside from "Suspiria" and "Trauma"?

Real horror movies have been dead for years now, especially after the rape, pillage, and whoring of the big 3 franchises.

Punker69
I though clockstoppers was coool PlENTPAK I own it.
I did like daredevil also.
Didnt like HULK or LXG tho.

Cinemaddiction
Bah. "Clockstoppers" was such a tweenie wannabe "BTTF".

My vote goes to "Flatliners". Cool story, but they got the 2nd coming of the brat pack to do the movie. Julia Roberts in the "Mystic Pizza" era, Keifer in "Young Guns" era, etc.

Evil Dead
......hmmm..........some people might say you need to check the release dates on some of those movies.

- Nice list of mostly horror movies there.........I do notice that other the utter lack of classic horror movies (except for Evil Dead and Dawn of the Dead)...... those are the movies that jump to your mind when you talk horror?


"Real horror movies have been dead for years now, especially after the rape, pillage, and whoring of the big 3 franchises."

Do you mean slasher franchises? If you mean horror.........and not slasher, I hope to god you aren't talking about A Nightmare on Elm St., Friday the 13th, and Halloween. I hope you are not ranking those movies' franchise's above great horror movies that spawned franchises (with sucky sequels also) like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Psycho, The Amityville Horror (part 2 was also good...the other two sucked), and ofcourse The Omen (which is the exception because it's sequels do not suck at all).
- You must not know where to look if you can only find two Argento films.................

Cinemaddiction
"Nice list of mostly horror movies there.........I do notice that other the utter lack of classic horror movies (except for Evil Dead and Dawn of the Dead)...... those are the movies that jump to your mind when you talk horror?"

You asked about movies made in the last 17 years, that would be from 1987 to 2004.

I was only 2 years off on Re-Animator, Dawn of the Dead, and Evil Dead. The rest were all 1987 or after. That said, of course I'm not going to list classic horror movies, and I'm not even a fan of the genre, those should be common knowledge to any movie fan.

Ya want real horror titles, I'd shoot for..

The Last Satanic Rites of Dracula
Susperia
Nosferatu
Rosemary's Baby
Jacobs Ladder
Mommy Dearest
Phantasm
The Exorcist
The Prophecy
Romero Trilogy (Night, Dawn, Day)
House on Haunted Hill (Original)
Thirteen Ghosts (Original)
The Hills have Eyes
Last House on the Left
The Thing
Alien
The Fog
Poltergeist
Duel
Carrie
Scanners
Seven

The list could go on and on, back to old school "horror", while I respect it, I find it hard to watch.

Point is, "28 Days Later" is no where near the best horror film in the past 2 decades. It's a hack job, plain and simple, and terribly overrated.

As for Dario Argento movies, I couldn't care less. He's got 2, maybe 3 US titles, and I am not much for foreign films to begin with, much less foreign horror films, or horror films in general.

Kes
I just dont understand why ppl keep comparing 28 days later to Resident evil?!blink

The day after tomorrow sounds interesting. I wish I could see that.
The Omega man is not even listed has horror blink

Evil Dead
alot of good horror choices there.........especially Last House, Phantasm, Carrie, Romero "dead" trilogy, alien and se7en.

I do however think that Rosemary's Baby and The Exorcist are two of the most over rated pieces of crap that have ever been produced. I'm not saying that because they might not be as good as some newer movies.....but were good for their day. They weren't even good for their day. There are countless movies produced around the same time which are much better.....most notably The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Amityville Horror, Jaws and The Omen.

We has a misunderstanding. I actually asked for a better horror movie produced in the last ten years...........but I guess you thought I said 17 because I said it was the best horror movie produced in the past 17 years, since Hellraiser.

Kes........The Omega Man (great flick, I'm a Chuck Heston mark) isn't horror. It's a futuristic sci-fi flick. I do however see how he draws the comparison in some aspects of the film.....

Cinemaddiction
Do you remember the end of "Resident Evil", when Milla Jovovich walks out of the Umbrella Corporation, out into the city, and it's deserted? Cars flipped over, papers everywhere, fires.

That's exactly how it was when whatshisname from "28 Days Later" walked out of the hospital. Completely abandoned, because everyone that wasn't infected, or dead, fled the city.

"Resident Evil" was even made before "28 Days" was originally released in the U.K.I dunno where I got that 17 years from, either. Maybe I was just in a blind typing rage, as usual. Even so, 1/2 of those movies fall in that 10 year period. IMHO, TCM is an overrated, glorified B rate cult movie.

Evil Dead
what is the use of comparing 28 Days Later to Resident Evil? If you are going to do that........you might aswell say they both copied The Omega Man.


Everybody has the right to like or dislike whatever movie they wish. You don't like Texas Chainsaw, okay. It did however start an entire film genre (slasher) that still thrives to this day......here 30 years later. Predator on the other hand, while being a good movie........all it produced was a half hearted farse of a sequel. I havn't seen it imitated for the last 15 years......much less the 30 years Texas Chainsaw has been imitated.

Cinemaddiction
No zombies in "the Omega Man", which is my point. wink

And of course, nobody can rip "Predator". There is no "paying homage" to it without making it a direct lift.

As for TCM, I think it's fair to say that none of it's sequels are garnering any praise, either. TCM got it's appeal for being what it was in it's day.

It's not gory, it's not scary, it was just shocking at the time, you know?
And IMHO, slasher films aren't thriving, they are barely on life support, and you can thank their very makers for whoring them out, and tacking on monotonous, haggard, empty sequels.

Punker69
I though resident evil was cool.
I havent seen 28 days later tho.

Kes
Resident evil is from March, 28 days later is from December.The difference is not big.Its not a copy, merely coincidence.Plus you cant compare both storys and the desolation of an empty London.

caballera
I can't say Alien v. Predator yet, but I get the feeling. Trailer here.

Punker69
I dont think AVP will be good.

Evil Dead
"No zombies in "the Omega Man", which is my point"


haha.........none in 28 Days Later either my friend. If you'd watched the movie.......the entire premise is about everybody being infected with a virus that makes them go crazy. How do you even liken this to the walking dead (zombie)? People go crazy and kill people. This is nothing like the dead coming back to life and seeking human flesh to devour.

I think Alien vs. Predator will be a decent action movie. I don't look for anything plot wise.........I think the plot will be retarded. Alien 3 & 4 aswell as Predator 2 were both extremely weak in plot. I hope that the action in Alien vs. Predator justifies the $8 I drop to watch it.

Cinemaddiction
The people infected are posessed. In "The Exorcist", what would you refer to Linda Blair as? A zombie, no? Generally speaking, they were untreatbly posessed people, who would no doubt attack the unposessed?

But who's to say, since we never saw them in action.

As for "28 Days Later" and it's plot. I was under the impression that the premise of the movie was how people react when faced with overwhelming circumstances, as well as human nature, nationwide epidemics, survival of the fittest, procreation. All this was even touched in in Planet of the Apes, too.

Evil Dead
Do you mean possessed by demons?

What the hell.........they simply have a virus that causes them to go crazy. It's syphilis x 1000. The virus is passed through blood exchange........

"but the premise of the movie was how people react when faced with overhwelimg circumstances, as well as human nature, survival of the fittest, procreation. All this was even touched in in Planet of the Apes"

dead on..........

Tired Hiker
Tank Girl, bad idea, bad movie.

Cinemaddiction
"Tank Girl" was just a silly comic book. I loved the movie, and I own it. I also own "UHF", so so much for my credibility, eh? Those are just guilty pleasures.

Those "people" in "28 Days Later" were clinically dead. Mindless. Remember the black guy that was chained up in the alley? He couldn't feed, right? So, that implied he need to do either one or both things.

a) Spread the virus
b) "Feed". Never said how, but I don't think he meant a Big Mac.

Draw your own conclusion. I say they were zombies. stick out tongue

Evil Dead
Incorrect sir. You need to watch the movie again. Those people were alive. The guy chained up couldn't feed, that was the point. They captured him and chained him up so they could see how long it would take him to starve to death.........which would in turn tell them how long it would take for the other people infected with the virus to starve to death............so they could commense with rebuilding their society after all of the crazy people had starved to death. That is all laid out in the movie.........by the commanding officer of the military group.


Bah......we all have guilty pleasures. There's nothing wrong with that as long as you realize that is what they are. I own all 4 Critters dvds.......you can't have too much more guilty of a pleasure than that.

Cinemaddiction
No need for me to see it again. Couldn't stay awake long enough to do so, anyway. Let me reiterate. Clinically BRAINDEAD. They were braindead persons who needed to feed on something to survive, which would make them zombies.

Thats the point I am trying to prove here.

Evil Dead
But they weren't clinically brain dead..........

They were no more brain dead than a tiger or lion.........or any other territorial animal............

They were far from being brain dead.......they could see, hear, had normal motor activity, they could think, reason,........they knew how to climb barriers.......how to break glass to get to people......they were simply crazy humans who wanted to kill. They were more like Slasher movie icons than they were zombies.

Kes
Cinemaddiction> You really need to re-watch the movie cos you completely missed its point. I guess it having a story kinda thru you off. Watch it again,but pay attention. I know its difficult...most movies these days you dont need to pay attention to get them. There's nothing to get. Put see this one again and you'll see.

Cinemaddiction
Kes, I'm the one that nailed the point of the movie earlier. I've seen the movie twice, and understand it fully. You are way off base.

The "infected" people aren't really people. They are, by definition, zombies. Human beings in a state of automaton, meaning, an individual who acts in a mechanical fashion. They were literally rabid human beings.

It has been referred to time and time again as a "zombie" movie, and that is always the way I will see it.

Evil Dead
um.........a zombie by definetion is a reanimated, dead person. The walking dead. The term comes from Haiti and the voodoo belief that casting a curse on a person can bring them back to life after their death as a mindless servant.

How can you call them zombies if you don't even know what a zomie is?

You are correct on one assertion.......they are basically rabid human beings. Rabies being a disease and all...........so rabid dogs are now zombies by your account? WTF?

Cinemaddiction
I know precisely what a zombie is, and the "infected" people in the movie are just a new breed of zombie. Thats what's different about the movie. The people are infected with a disease that corrupts everything about them, and they become mindless, operating on an adopted instinct that forces them to feed to survive.

The only 2 non-human entities that come to mind, that have to feed on something human to survive, are Vampires and Zombies. Process of elimination rules out vampires, so what's left?

Reviews, synopsis, press releases, you name it ALL refer to the infected as zombies. It's a new breed, like I said ,and the only thing that makes the movie somewhat original.

I'll suspend reality when it comes to this movie, but not common sense or logic. New breed of zombies are made in this movie, lets agree and STFU about it.

Evil Dead
Like myself and Kes both said........you need to watch the movie again.

The infected people DO NOT FEED ON PEOPLE........THEY DO NOT EAT PEOPLE...........they simply kill them. They eat as many people as Jason Voorhies, Michael Myers and Freddy Krueger do........which is zero. They merely kill..............which is why I likened the infected people more to slasher movie icons than to zombies earlier.

You are confused on many aspects of the movie. You probably need to atleast understand the movie before you continue to bash it. What in the world gave you the idea that the infected people in 28 Days Later were canibals? What the hell made you think that they ate people?

Cinemaddiction
I understand the movie just fine. Not once did I say they did eat people. I said the needed to feed somehow. We never saw it happen, so whos to say how they did feed to begin with? I'd assume they have to get something from the humans to survive?

As for the zombie debate, I'm sticking to my guns with what I said earlier, because I'm not wasting another dollar on this movie.

Evil Dead
" I'd assume they have to get something from the humans to survive?"


A main plot point towards the end of the movie reveals that they don't eat anything........they don't feed on anything. They get nothing from humans/animals/plants to survive.

The infected are so over taken with Rage that killing is all they think about. They do not even eat. This is why the soldiers have captured one of them. Since they do not eat..........having one of the infected held captive will tell them how long it takes the infected to starve to death. They watch this guy.......if it takes 15 days for him to starve to death........they know all the infected will starve to death 15 days after he becomes infected. This tells them how long they must wait to start rebuilding their society.

And I will never agree with your "new breed of zombie" theory...........I will never consider crazy people who kill to be zombies. Some crazy guy in Florida just decides to start killing everybody in sight........I'm not going to call him a zombie.

Cinemaddiction
You don't have to agree with me on the zombie issue, most everyone else already does, as I said.

As for the "not feeding" issue. If they didn't need to feed, why was it mentioned that they had to do it to survive?

Also, how do you account for the dead HUMAN bodies on the streets? Meaning, not infected? Is it totally illogicial to rule out they were killed, fed upon, and not infected?

Nobody can say, but while there is no proof either way, and their failure to explain a feeding process, I'm going to keep my opinion open ended.

Evil Dead
"If they didn't need to feed, why was it mentioned that they had to do it to survive? "

It was mentioned to point out that they can't survive. The infected do not eat.......which means they can not survive very long........which means they will all die. The military are waiting for them all to starve to death.

This is why they have one of the infected chained up at their compound. They were able to knock him unconcious as he became infected...........and are now keeping him chained up so they can see how long it will take him to starve to death. This will tell them how long it will take all the other infected people to starve to death.

This leads into the closing scenes of the movie when it focuses on random infected people dying in the streets.....holding their stomachs, starving to death.

I know I keep saying it again and again but seriously man, you need to watch the movie again. You are arguing points that were covered in the movie........and were actually intregal plot points but you just missed them when you watched the movie the first time. Even if you don't like the movie..........just watch it again to see what you missed the first time. It might make a bit more sense to you. You will probably still not like the movie........but atleast you won't be coming on message boards arguing about stuff that was already explained in the movie, you just weren't paying enough attention to grasp the first time.

Cinemaddiction
Alright, maybe I will. Don't be surprised if I come back with more fuel for the fire, though.

Evil Dead
I look forward to it. Even if full of debate, this is one of the only threads I've read lately that actually discussed a movie. Which is ironic being as our discussion was completely off topic............

Carlcsw
Terminator 3 - This film had a good concept & story line but Johnathon Mostow the director kinda went for the more action packed genre and didn't get the story across that well, it was more like a hit n run kind of story. Once u heard it u thought ok then.

The person playing John Connor was annoying n looked like he was gonna cry or was paranoid. Claire Danes had a perfect role tho and im not too sure about the TX in female form, seems like a cheap shot to get more people in but she did pull it off nicely except for the action scenes when her and Arnie duke it out. And there wasn't much of an ending was there like the Terminator 2 ending when the T-1000 and T-800 battle it out.

Not too much action either, but when they did do some (i.e. the truck) they kind of went over the top.


Freddy V Jason - Very good concept and is an good movie but the acting from a few of the actors wasn't that good, like from Kelly Rowland in some scenes and the main guy who got locked up in that pysch ward. But you will be all joyful to see Kellys last scene near the end when Jason gives her the chop Happy Dance

Story could of pushed on a bit tho, it seemed a bit slow in some areas like the at the Pyscho-hosipatl n Party thing, u kinda of wonder how did u get there so fast, 1 min ur at a party then ur in a van, then ur at a table. BUT the fight scene at the end of the movie was SO GOOD you would of finished watching the film and would of gone WOW.

eek! big grin

Alien 3 - Alright concept n an alright movie but it no way compared to Aliens, why where the main charactors killed off like Hicks n Newt. It would of worked from a good angel with those charactors in. Instead of the once again Survivor Ripley. Environments n sets looked good but no real story except for stay alive from the one Alien n not get killed. A few things could of been done to of made this movie better. But as we all know Alien 3 is so much better than Alien Ressurection (a poor excuse of a movie, dont even get me started mad ).


Evil Dead 3 - Very good concept but the movie wasn't played out as good as I hope, it was given a more comedy side but a few scenes were good and I cant stand when that thing is chasing Ash in day light as he rides his horse, it seems so corny n the way it moves n how the trees r knocked down aren't that good.

EVIL DEAD 2: DEAD BY DAWN is the BEST !!!!!!!!!! Go see it.


Resident Evil - Ok concept, loved the games, but the movie kind of sucked in story-line, action, and the Zombie effects. When the team shoot the zombies I didn't feel the action of the moment, just felt plain, it needed better gun sound effects and better camera angles as well as better use of the guns.

It panned a long but not as good as I hoped, Zombie pit was a bit extreme since u would never of seen that in the games and the Licker was cool tho.

amy_gorg
jeepers creepers is good until the sequel...pie of crap i have to say..the first one is good cause it does exactly wat it says...scares you for weeks......i can tell you i didn't go out for fu..king ages after the movie

caballera
I just wasn't scared by it, but I wasn't scared by The Ring either. It was just too poorly written and acted. I was laughing so hard. If a scary movie isn't done well, it just isnt good.

beaujay1
erm AI????? it was such a wierd idea, but it could have been so much more........

Lord Soth
yeah, AI was not well-received

*Georgina_A*
i agree. even though crookshanks looks nothing like a big cat (like he should be!) but it still looks ok.

Lord Soth
Crookshanks? I don't remember her from the trailer.....

caballera
Agree with Harry Potter but there's a different director did the third one and i think it should be a lot better.

caballera
Oh, i just saw The Cooler. Good idea, bad movie. There was good acting however (Alec Baldwin was nominated for Best Supporting Actor)

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.